Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)

From: Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com>
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 00:44:00 EDT

Iain:

I don't think this helps.

Yes, it would be important that the proteins be available for the
construction of the flagellum, but, it would seem, no more important
that I have steel in making a car.

The very fact that the proteins are "common" or already around for other
purposes entials that they have general use. From them, therefore,
there are likely and infinite number of possible ways that they could be
used, none of them necessarily linked physically to anyone of those
realizations. Hence, just having the proteins around does little in
explaining or accounting for any one realization.

The essential question is what are the "parts" that must (in a rough
sense) be simultaneously be available. The parts do not, according to
your information, do not appear to be the proteins. For, as you have, I
believe, informed us, different flagellum use different proteins. This
seems to indicate the specfic proteins may matter less than the "parts"
which they form. So, for example, a wheel for a car could be made of
wood, steel, or rubber, yet, in all cases, it is the function of a wheel
that is vital, and not so much what the wheel is made of. In this case,
and perhaps in part for the flagellum, the proteins serve structural
purposes and not, for example, chemical ones.

I remember little of Behe's discussion of the flagellum. Regardless, for
IC to make sense one must carefully delineate what we mean by the
essential parts. This is likely ambiguous, and perhaps even arbitrary.
But before declaring that the proteins are the essential parts of the
flagellum clearly some discussion must accompany the assertion.

I have suggested from what you have told us that the essential parts are
not the proteins. It is good to have the proteins already available, but
the proteins don't form themselves into a flagellum, just as a pile steel
doesn't organize itself into a car.

We can trace the development of a car. The "parts" where clearly not
produced simultaneously. Parts of cars are to be found in carts, pumps,
and steam engines. In some way the concepts were preserved for other
purposes to be put together at the right time. All those parts had uses
for other things than making cars. Probably there is nothing in a car
that didn't have a history of some sort prior to being incorporated into a
car. That is simply the history of human invention. We would be lost
without this historical continuity. There are probably never any such
things as wholly novel inventions. Does this mean that a car is not IC?

So are you are saying that for anything to be IC, then there must be no
continuous history, nothing in common with what has gone before? The
device or entity must simply spring into being, discontinuously, like
magic or a miracle?

Is your position (or at least a position) that IC entails an ahistorical
event, but if it has a history, it would be coherent with an evolutionary
account? There is some sense to this position.

Historical development follows a temporal series, and this would, in this
simple model, represent an evolutionary account.

I think, however, this is not quite correct. As I've tried to say
previously, an evolutionary model entails the coincidence of a small
number of events. It has to do this because it is a random (blind)
process. This means that evolutionary history tends to be (but need not
be) a series of binary events.

IC, however, is not constrained by binary events. Indeed, it argues that
certain biological entities could not be accounted for by a series of
binary events, but requires higher order coincidence, even much higher.

It is in this latter sense, that a car is IC. It requires the coming
together of a large number of parts simultaneously, regardless of whether
those parts had been around independently for a long time. The point is
that the parts are being used differently and in a novel way. One must be
able to explain how this novel use of parts, even if previously available,
could be put together. When the number of parts is large, it boggles the
mind how random processes could do it.

What is argued, or suggested by evolutionary theory, is that the random
processes didn't do it all at once, or even in a few stages, but in a
large number of steps. If this is so, then, it would seem, that a large
number of those small steps in the creation of the parts would have to
have other functional purposes. Note, however, that simply noting that
the proteins used in the flagellum are commonly used for other purposes
will simply not do. The presence of the proteins might be considered to
be sufficient for a few of those hundreds of thousands of steps, but there
are simply far too many steps left out for this to be convincing. The
availability of steel for cars surely represents but only one of the many
thousands of essential steps required in the making of a car.

I know this is long, and I apologize for my thinking before your very
eyes. But I'm almost done (I think).

What have I, at least, learned?

Let me go back to the question I previously asked: is a car IC?
If we assume that a car has "evolved" by a long series of steps, preserved
for other functions, is the car IC?

I seem to be of two minds on this.

On the one hand, if the parts of a car can be developed and preserved for
other purposes, we might argue that it is not IC.

Yet it also seems that the putting together of these parts in a novel way
is in some sense discontinuous. (I know historically that is not true,
but for the time being let's say that it is.) And this discontinuous and
novel construction of available parts does appear to bear the marks of IC.

What I seem to be getting to has something to do with functionality. It
isn't merely the parts that must have a continuous history, it is the
functionality. If the functionality is "discontinuous" or novel, esp.
where the number of parts is large, we would tend to doubt that a random
process would be capable of putting it together.

What I learn from this is that an evolutionary account entails a
continuous history of all aspects of an entity, whether they be
structural, functional, or some other property. It entails a continuous
(binary) development of all properties of an entity.

IC argues that not all properties of an entity have a continuous (binary)
development.

IC questions the probablistic resources of an evolutionary account of all
the properties of all biological entities, and claims that some biological
properties of some entities require a non-random accounting.

Done.

bill

      On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Iain Strachan wrote:

> I think I should leave it to the biologists on the list to speculate on how
> the proteins of the flagellum were put together. I don't know and I suspect
> we don't know scientifically. But I think it's a separate issue.
>
> The basic issue is that the flagellum is made of proteins (about 40 of
> them). Only two are unique to all flagella; hence the other 38 are either
> not essential, or have other uses. The IC argument only makes sense (and it
> did make sense to me at one time) if you adhere to Behe's definition of IC,
> which Cameron has poined out, and further maintain that so many essential
> parts would have to be present simultaneously in order for the thing to
> exist (independent of the question of how it's put together). If all those
> essential parts are useless except in making a flagellum, then I grant you
> have a cast iron case against evolution. But they're not useless in
> providing survival value - they would have been selected because of this.
>
> Iain
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Iain:
>>
>> Being relatively naive on these issues, I have a question.
>>
>> It appears from the information you present here that what makes a
>> flagellum a flagellum is not the proteins. The proteins serve more as some
>> sort of building block, like granite making either a rubble or the Taj
>> Mahal.
>>
>> So I guess that's the first question: What is the true distinctive of a
>> flagellum?
>>
>> If proteins do serve more as building blocks, like steel serves to make a
>> car, you can see that much more goes into the creation of a car than having
>> nothing but steel.
>>
>> It seems, if this is right or nearly so, that one still hasn't addressed
>> the issue by pointing out the commonality of proteins. The proteins would
>> still have to be put together into a functioning whole. Even Behe's
>> mousetrap could begin with scarps of steel and wood, and still be IC.
>>
>> bill
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Iain Strachan wrote:
>>
>> Cameron,
>>>
>>> I don't have time right now to read Behe's rejoinders - I will attempt to
>>> do
>>> so. But I was responding to the argument as you stated it, on the fact
>>> that
>>> the existence of one intermediate doesn't explain the evolution of the
>>> flagellum - with which I agreed.
>>>
>>> If you wish to define irreducible complexity in this way:
>>>
>>> To disprove the claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, one
>>>> would
>>>>
>>> need to rip out a part of the flagellum and have it still function *as a
>>> flagellum* (not as a Type III secretory system).
>>>
>>> then you can't use it as an argument against evolution. It is only a
>>> valid
>>> argument under the assumption that the flagellum we see today must evolved
>>> in a stepwise fashion from a series of less effective flagella. If you
>>> insist on that then I agree that the irreducible complexity argument
>>> defies
>>> evolution. But the fact is that evolution doesn't work like that;
>>> proteins
>>> get re-used in other objects - it is not necessary to have them all
>>> present
>>> by a freak accident to get a functioning flagellum - they were all present
>>> and used in other functions. There is a New Scientist article on the
>>> flagellum not being irreducibly complex that states that of the 40 or so
>>> proteins, there are only two that are common to all flagella. Here's the
>>> quote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> The best studied flagellum, of the *E. coli* bacterium, contains around 40
>>> different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are
>>> common
>>> to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a "designer"
>>> created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist
>>> claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery
>>> without
>>> mucking it up.
>>>
>>> What's more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique
>>> to
>>> flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other
>>> functions in the cell. *This means that the vast majority of the
>>> components
>>> needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria
>>> before this structure appeared.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Emphasis mine. The irreducible complexity argument only has any force if
>>> one requires them all to appear at once by multple simultaneous mutations.
>>> But if the building blocks were already there it doesn't seem to me to
>>> have
>>> any force at all.
>>>
>>> I do not consider I have made an "honest error" and I also feel that your
>>> attribution of malice to Miller is not the sort of thing one Christian
>>> should be accusing another one of.
>>>
>>> I speak as one who was for a long while absolutely convinced of
>>> Intelligent
>>> Design, and who was convinced by reading Darwin's Black Box. If you read
>>> my
>>> posts to this listserve from around 2001 (they're not hard to find) you'll
>>> see someone who was anti-evolution. I have changed my mind since then.
>>>
>>> The reason I was anti-evolution was because I could see the irreducible
>>> complexity issue happening in the computer science field of genetic
>>> algorithms. Exactly that problem crops up if you try and design an
>>> evolutionary algorithm to solve an engineering problem. I reasoned that
>>> this meant that evolution itself could not work for the same reason. The
>>> error I was making was to assume that evolution worked in the same way as
>>> the genetic algorithm - the search for a specific solution. But it does
>>> not
>>> - there is no specific goal and components can get re-used in different
>>> ways.
>>>
>>>
>>> Iain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Iain:
>>>>
>>>> You are quite wrong. You have not understood Behe's definition at all.
>>>> You have made the same mistake that Ken Miller has made. The fact that
>>>> some
>>>> parts of an irreducibly complex machine can be used in another machine to
>>>> serve a useful function does not prove that the first machine is not
>>>> irreducibly complex. The fact that the wheel and axle of an automobile
>>>> can
>>>> be taken out and used for a go-cart does not prove that the wheel and
>>>> axle
>>>> is not a necessary functioning part of the automobile. The automobile (I
>>>> mean the main parts thereof, not the radio or the leather seats) remains
>>>> an
>>>> irreducibly complex machine.
>>>>
>>>> To disprove the claim that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, one
>>>> would
>>>> need to rip out a part of the flagellum and have it still function *as a
>>>> flagellum* (not as a Type III secretory system).
>>>>
>>>> Miller misreads Behe, I believe maliciously. In your case, I will assume
>>>> it is an honest error. Please read Behe's rejoinders to Miller for
>>>> further
>>>> clarification, from the horse's mouth, if you don't trust my answer.
>>>> They're easy to find.
>>>>
>>>> Cameron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
>>>> *Cc:* asa <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 5:29 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design
>>>> and
>>>> the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)
>>>>
>>>> Cameron,
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Type III Secretory System.
>>>> I don't think the point of Miller's example is to "solve the problem that
>>>> Behe is raising" as you put it. It doesn't show us how the flagellum
>>>> evolved & indeed we don't know this. The point is whether or not the
>>>> flagellum is irreducibly complex.
>>>>
>>>> Miller has demonstrated the existence of smaller parts of it in another
>>>> functioning organelle, and thus shows that it is _not_ irreducibly
>>>> complex.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's QED. The whole case rests on the idea that the flagellum
>>>> is
>>>> irreducibly complex. It isn't.
>>>>
>>>> The key point is that the smaller part of it is used for a different
>>>> function, but one that also has benefit.
>>>>
>>>> Iain
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bernie:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill has partly answered your posts already, and my understanding is
>>>>> about
>>>>> the same as his, but let me try to address your objections in my own
>>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things must be kept distinct:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The nature of an irreducibly complex system
>>>>> 2. The question whether Darwinian evolutionary processes can produce
>>>>> irreducibly complex systems
>>>>>
>>>>> On point 1:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Irreducible complexity" is a non-historical, functional description of
>>>>> a
>>>>> system. It indicates that all the parts are necessary for the whole to
>>>>> function. In an irreducibly complex system, all the parts interact in
>>>>> such
>>>>> a way that the removal of one of them would cause the system to cease
>>>>> functioning. This is basically an engineering concept, having nothing
>>>>> intrinsically to do with evolution or even with biology.
>>>>>
>>>>> On point 2:
>>>>>
>>>>> We know from our experience as human beings that irreducibly complex
>>>>> systems can be built by intelligent agents, e.g., ourselves. We do not
>>>>> have
>>>>> experience of inanimate matter building irreducibly complex systems.
>>>>> (Unless
>>>>> the inanimate matter is following a template, e.g., as in embryonic
>>>>> development; but I am speaking of building them up from scratch, or from
>>>>> earlier systems which are quite different.) So the question is, can
>>>>> natural
>>>>> processes, unguided by any intelligence, produce irreducibly complex
>>>>> systems, or transform one irreducibly complex system into an entirely
>>>>> different one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwinian evolution says that they can. Behe's argument is that there
>>>>> are
>>>>> formidable barriers in biological systems to the production of
>>>>> irreducibly
>>>>> complex systems by means of accidental mutations, even when those
>>>>> mutations
>>>>> are culled by natural selection, because natural selection can't select
>>>>> for
>>>>> a system which does not function. So how do you get enough mutations
>>>>> together to make up the new system that you want, so that "natural
>>>>> selection" can select it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Behe grants that in theory there might be intermediate stages between
>>>>> two
>>>>> irreducibly complex systems, each of which has survival value. But he
>>>>> doesn't find much evidence in the Darwinian literature of these stages.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding Ken Miller, Miller and Behe have been at this for years. They
>>>>> have published several articles each on the irreducible complexity of
>>>>> the
>>>>> flagellum. I think it is important that if you read Ken Miller's
>>>>> criticism
>>>>> of Behe's argument, you read every one of Behe's rejoinders.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, Miller sometimes misrepresents Point 1 -- what Behe means by an
>>>>> irreducibly complex system. Whether this is out of lack of
>>>>> understanding or
>>>>> out of malice, I don't know. Anyhow, Behe clarifies what he means in
>>>>> his
>>>>> rejoinders. You can read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, Miller has suggested as a possible intermediate the Type III
>>>>> secretory system. Let's say we grant this. It still doesn't do nearly
>>>>> enough to solve the problem that Behe is raising. There would have to
>>>>> be a
>>>>> series of useful intermediates, not just one, between your basic
>>>>> bacterium
>>>>> and your bacterium with a flagellum. So you still need some notion of
>>>>> what
>>>>> these stages would have been, how they would have given the creature
>>>>> survival advantage, how they would be generated genetically, etc. 99%
>>>>> of
>>>>> the story is missing. And in many cases in the animal kingdom, 100% of
>>>>> the
>>>>> story is missing. What are the intermediate stages? What survival
>>>>> value
>>>>> did they have? An eagle with 5% sharper eyesight has a definite
>>>>> survival
>>>>> advantage. But what about a bat with half a wing, enough to impair the
>>>>> normal functioning of the arm, but not good enough to fly, or even glide
>>>>> in
>>>>> a stable manner? What survival advantage would that intermediate form
>>>>> have?
>>>>> Or a malfunctioning sonar, one which sometimes caught mosquitoes very
>>>>> well,
>>>>> and other times let the bat crash into the cave wall? What survival
>>>>> advantage would that intermediate form have? If evolution had to work
>>>>> up
>>>>> through such imperfect partial stages, it would certainly never get to
>>>>> the
>>>>> bat. And Darwinists have yet to come up with even a single plausible
>>>>> sequence of intermediate forms, anywhere in the animal kingdom, that
>>>>> could
>>>>> produce complex organic machinery such as the cardiovascular system.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can trace the "evolution" of the motor car. We can see "intermediate
>>>>> stages" between the Model T and modern cars. But all of those
>>>>> intermediate
>>>>> stages were designed, irreducibly complex systems. They did not mutate
>>>>> into
>>>>> the next phase by accident. The question is, can nature do the
>>>>> equivalent,
>>>>> and manage, not just frequently but millions of times, to find its way,
>>>>> unguided, to useful intermediate forms? The Type III secretory system,
>>>>> one
>>>>> possible intermediate in a single type of unicellular creature, is very
>>>>> thin evidence upon which to rest a mechanism which is supposed to
>>>>> explain
>>>>> the entire macroevolutionary process.
>>>>>
>>>>> To bring this back to your original objection: Behe allows that
>>>>> "evolution" (not of the Darwinian kind) might have produced irreducibly
>>>>> complex systems. But if so, it would be "front-loaded" evolution of some
>>>>> kind, in which the parts were, so to speak, self-assembling, almost as
>>>>> if
>>>>> they had an inbuilt intelligence which told them when to appear and
>>>>> where to
>>>>> take their place in the new arrangement. Needless to say, such a
>>>>> front-loaded evolution would require a mind with an ability to handle
>>>>> complex interactions far beyond that of the greatest supercomputer, a
>>>>> superintelligence which could only be divine. So if you go for
>>>>> front-loading, you have to believe in God. Maybe not the Christian God,
>>>>> but
>>>>> some kind of God. Thus, Denton, who proposes such a system, speaks of
>>>>> God.
>>>>> Behe stops short of endorsing Denton's view as the correct one, but
>>>>> allows
>>>>> it as a possible means of producing irreducible complexity through an
>>>>> evolutionary process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, unless you rigorously separate "evolution" from "Darwinian
>>>>> evolution", as I have been begging everyone here to do, you will never
>>>>> understand the arguments or motivations of ID proponents. The
>>>>> intelligent
>>>>> design of irreducibly complex systems is logically compatible with
>>>>> evolution, but not of course with Darwinian evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cameron.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dehler, Bernie" <
>>>>> bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 2:18 PM
>>>>> Subject: RE: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design and
>>>>> the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "The issue is the number of elements that must be simultaneously
>>>>>> available. If all the parts of a mouse trap are present simultaneously
>>>>>> it might even be possible for a car accident to put it together, but
>>>>>> highly unlikely."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I understand irreducible complexity (IC) , it is argued that the
>>>>>> parts
>>>>>> can't al be around at the same time because there is no use for them to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> around. That is the whole point of the argument- since there is no use
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> them, they must have been created together all at once. Therefore-
>>>>>> evolution, guided or unguided, is impossible. Evolution is all about
>>>>>> building something more complex from more simpler building blocks. IC
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> all about this evolution being impossible, because there is no need for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> lower building blocks to be around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Bill Powers [mailto:wjp@swcp.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34 AM
>>>>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>>>>> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] RE: (irreducible complexity and evolution) design
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re: Gingerich on TE and ID)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bernie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll let Cameron reply for himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But clearly your understanding of irreducible complexity cannot be
>>>>>> correct. After all, we do construct mouse traps and cars all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is the number of elements that must be simultaneously
>>>>>> available. If all the parts of a mouse trap are present simultaneously
>>>>>> it might even be possible for a car accident to put it together, but
>>>>>> highly unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a matter of probabalistic resources. In order to put togehter a
>>>>>> car, say on an assembly line, it is required that
>>>>>> 1) the available parts be simultaneously, or more carefully that they
>>>>>> would be available on the time scale much shorter than the dissipative
>>>>>> time scale (i.e., some measure of the effects of entropy, friction, or
>>>>>> chaotic mixing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) That all the pieces would be put together on a time scale short
>>>>>> compared to the disordering time scale (e.g., the time for the parts to
>>>>>> rust, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irreducible complexity, as I understand it, is a statement that the
>>>>>> joint probability of both the parts being nearly simultaneously
>>>>>> available, say over time DeltaT, and the probability of the parts being
>>>>>> put together over a time DeltaT is vanishingly small for a non-lawful,
>>>>>> non-intelligent process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It assumes that there is no necessity in the parts coming together
>>>>>> (e.g., the parts of a mouse trap have not "lawful" reason to come
>>>>>> together, although once together they remain together, implying, it
>>>>>> seems short range forces). The parts must have a lifetime that is long
>>>>>> compared to the time of preparation, otherwise what is put together
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> not be made of the parts, although it might be possible that even a
>>>>>> rusty car could become a whole, or an "inferior" mousetrap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Jun
>>>>>> 2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron quoted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " If the parts of the universe are so fine-tuned that they cannot help
>>>>>>> but fall together into certain biologically functional arrangements,
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> irreducibly complex structures will of course form through a
>>>>>>> front-loaded
>>>>>>> evolutionary process."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand. I understand "irreducible complexity" to mean
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> it is impossible for nature to sequentially build something complex
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> all the parts would need to appear at once (like the mousetrap needing
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> of it's basic parts to be present at the same time). This is against
>>>>>>> evolution- guided or unguided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:35 AM
>>>>>>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re:
>>>>>>> Gingerich on TE and ID)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, Bernie, that's not the case. Here are just three paragraphs
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> you:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the parts of the universe are so fine-tuned that they cannot help
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> fall together into certain biologically functional arrangements, then
>>>>>>> irreducibly complex structures will of course form through a
>>>>>>> front-loaded
>>>>>>> evolutionary process. The evolutionary process would then be
>>>>>>> analogous
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the embryological process, in that the outcome would be planned from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> beginning, with the changes all ready in advance. But this would be a
>>>>>>> planned evolutionary process, unlike Darwin's evolutionary process,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> essential nature of which is to be unplanned. Irreducible complexity
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not clash with "evolution"; it clashes with "unplanned evolution".
>>>>>>> Behe
>>>>>>> assumed that any careful reader of *Darwin's Black Box* would
>>>>>>> understand
>>>>>>> that he was talking about "unplanned evolution".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, there is as yet no evidence that fine-tuning can accomplish
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> an evolutionary feat. Fine-tuning at the evolutionary level
>>>>>>> essentially
>>>>>>> requires that the earliest DNA has the plan for the whole march of
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> implicit in it, and this claim is still highly speculative, and will
>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>> so until we understand what all the apparently unused DNA is for. But
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> view is no more speculative than Darwinism itself. Each view requires
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> seemingly incredible claim. Darwinism requires us to believe that
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> after time, over the course of life, accident produces new functional
>>>>>>> structures, with the whole process conveniently tending upwards toward
>>>>>>> man;
>>>>>>> front-loading or fine-tuning requires us to believe that level after
>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>> of biological complexity is packed into the fundamental properties of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> chemical elements, and this gives to biochemical necessity the awesome
>>>>>>> power
>>>>>>> that Darwinism gives to chance. On the face of it, it seems
>>>>>>> incredible
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> either chance or necessity could have such powers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The smart money, I would say, is on the view that the evolutionary
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> is in fact intelligently guided. It's a view consistent with our
>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>> of integrated complex systems, and of the limited power of Darwinian
>>>>>>> mechanisms. It's a view in tune with common sense. It's the view
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> seems to be held by Ted Davis and George Murphy and Robert Russell,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> also, I am told, by Owen Gingerich and other TEs. It is also a view
>>>>>>> compatible with the arguments of Behe and of many other ID supporters.
>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>> it is of course a view which, according to many here, is unscientific,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> non-scientific. I never said that intelligently guided evolution was
>>>>>>> "scientific" in the sense of a formal scientific hypothesis, but I
>>>>>>> certainly
>>>>>>> believe that it is compatible with the best scientific data -- more
>>>>>>> compatible, in fact, than pure Darwinism is. Once again, I think that
>>>>>>> TE,
>>>>>>> when it is not afraid to say directly and without ambiguity that God
>>>>>>> controlled the evolutionary process to produce certain specific
>>>>>>> results,
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> in tune with some versions of ID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cameron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>>>>>>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: design and the nature of science (was: Re: [asa] Re:
>>>>>>> Gingerich
>>>>>>> on TE and ID)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think one TE could say "yes" (fully gifted creation- Howard Van
>>>>>>> Till),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and another might say "No" because God needs to guide it somewhat or
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> certain times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cameron said:
>>>>>>>> ID says, "NO -- unless the properties of the atoms and the laws of
>>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>> are fine-tuned, which implies design."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If ID says it could happen, then that blows apart Behe's mousetrap
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>> (irreducible complexity), which is a pillar for ID I think ("Icons of
>>>>>>>> ID"
>>>>>>>> if you will).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -----------
>>>> Non timeo sed caveo
>>>> (\__/)
>>>> (='.'=)
>>>> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain world
>>>> domination
>>>> -----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----------
>>> Non timeo sed caveo
>>> (\__/)
>>> (='.'=)
>>> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain world
>>> domination
>>> -----------
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") This is a bunny copy him into your signature so he can gain world
> domination
> -----------
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 17 00:45:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 17 2009 - 00:45:08 EDT